Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kayke Moreno de Andrade Rodrigues


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was keep. John254 01:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Kayke Moreno de Andrade Rodrigues

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Uhh....what? I don't even understand the first part of this article. Either way, it fails WP:BIO. Undeath (talk) 06:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, appears to be a professional footballer. Looked like a bad automated translation, I've replaced it with stub text. Jfire (talk) 06:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as athlete in premier league club, Campeonato Brasileiro Série A. Sting au  Buzz Me...   07:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Also see Articles for deletion/Arto Tukio for previous discussion on a premier league athlete. Sting au  Buzz Me...   07:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, notable as a top-league footballer. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 08:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment article makes no assertion of criteria. Has he played any games - no apps stats in the infobox. Peanut4 (talk) 14:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm Wikilinking to the Portuguese article on him, which states he's made an appearance. Definitely meets notability. matt91486 (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Did he made his professional debut?, if not, Delete. Matthew_hk   t  c  18:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said in my note above, the Portuguese article asserts he has in fact made his debut. matt91486 (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Expand it then. Matthew_hk   t  c  07:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, according to this he has made 3 sub appearances, its a more reliable source than pt wiki, but contains so little additional info I'm not sure whether its a worthwhile external link. King of the  North  East  20:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it should work as a reference, the Guardian is a major paper. matt91486 (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.